<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1961 (4) TMI 95 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169948</link>
    <description>Statutory court-martial jurisdiction did not exclude a Special Judge&#039;s jurisdiction over offences also punishable under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, because exclusion must be express or necessarily implied; the objection to exclusive military trial therefore failed. The sanction for prosecution and the investigation were upheld, as the sanction was shown to be issued by the competent authority and any procedural irregularity caused no prejudice or failure of justice. Defects in framing of charges likewise did not vitiate the trial absent prejudice. The appellant&#039;s conviction was sustained on corroborated evidence of conspiracy, while the acquittal of the co-accused remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 May 2015 10:52:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384727" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (4) TMI 95 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169948</link>
      <description>Statutory court-martial jurisdiction did not exclude a Special Judge&#039;s jurisdiction over offences also punishable under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, because exclusion must be express or necessarily implied; the objection to exclusive military trial therefore failed. The sanction for prosecution and the investigation were upheld, as the sanction was shown to be issued by the competent authority and any procedural irregularity caused no prejudice or failure of justice. Defects in framing of charges likewise did not vitiate the trial absent prejudice. The appellant&#039;s conviction was sustained on corroborated evidence of conspiracy, while the acquittal of the co-accused remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169948</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>